Go to Post My father taught me long ago that how we respond to adversity is what defines us as human beings. Let's all keep this definition in mind as we move forward to change a culture. - Rich Kressly [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
View Poll Results: Has this affected your design?
Yes 33 30.28%
No 76 69.72%
Voters: 109. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-02-2006, 23:30
gburlison gburlison is offline
Mentor
FRC #0662 (Rocky Mountain Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 245
gburlison is a name known to allgburlison is a name known to allgburlison is a name known to allgburlison is a name known to allgburlison is a name known to allgburlison is a name known to all
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:
Originally Posted by GB330033
You highlighted the impulse portion, but look at the ejecting part. "the mechanism that delivers the final dynamic impulse that ejects the ball from the robot"

That leads me to believe that if the ball is not contained, it is not being ejected, and therefore the mechanism is not a shooter.

Also, a Q&A was already posted for a ramp, though I don't have the link. The response said that as long as gravity was the only force ejecting the balls, then the ramp would not qualify as a shooter.
I can see your point regarding pushing a ball with a part of your robot that expands beyond the starting dimensions. In essence, if the robot did not eject the ball, then the "any parts of the robot that contact the ball while and/or after this impulse is delivered" does not come into play. Can we assume that since gravity does not appear to count as ejecting the ball, then this same logic applies to a ramp?
__________________
Gordon Burlison - Mentor
662/Rocky Mountain Robotics
"Every silver lining's got a Touch of grey - Robert Hunter"
"No sense in being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"
Reply With Quote
  #32   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-02-2006, 23:31
Steve W Steve W is offline
Grow Up? Why?
no team
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Toronto,Ontario Canada
Posts: 2,523
Steve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

I would recommend the Q&A for your answers. The way I read the rules, if energy is use to eject the ball from your robot (Gravity is stored energy) and the ball touches the gate that is outside of the 28 x 38, then it is an illegal shooter. If the ball drops straight down it is not being ejected but dropped. If the ball moves forward into the goal from inside the robot, it is then being "shot" as something is causing the ball to move forward out of the robot.

If the robot pushes balls into the goal then it is not shooting. If however the pushing device is a flipper that moves independently of the rest of the robot then I would call that a shooting device.

All this is only my humble opinion and should be followed up with a proper response from the Q&A.
__________________
We do not stop playing because we grow old;
we grow old because we stop playing.
Reply With Quote
  #33   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-02-2006, 23:34
GB330033 GB330033 is offline
Programming Manager
FRC #1255 (Team Blarglefish)
Team Role: Programmer
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Baytown, Texas
Posts: 58
GB330033 will become famous soon enough
Send a message via AIM to GB330033
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Based on the Q&A Collin linked, it should be legal. Also, as said ramp is only deployed when up against the goal, it should also comply with <R04>

Edit: Also, I intend on consulting the Q&A as soon as I can, but our sponsor with the login information is going to be attending a conference in Austin for the first half of this week.
__________________
Hook'Em
Reply With Quote
  #34   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-02-2006, 23:36
gburlison gburlison is offline
Mentor
FRC #0662 (Rocky Mountain Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 245
gburlison is a name known to allgburlison is a name known to allgburlison is a name known to allgburlison is a name known to allgburlison is a name known to allgburlison is a name known to all
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve W
I would recommend the Q&A for your answers. The way I read the rules, if energy is use to eject the ball from your robot (Gravity is stored energy) and the ball touches the gate that is outside of the 28 x 38, then it is an illegal shooter. If the ball drops straight down it is not being ejected but dropped. If the ball moves forward into the goal from inside the robot, it is then being "shot" as something is causing the ball to move forward out of the robot.

If the robot pushes balls into the goal then it is not shooting. If however the pushing device is a flipper that moves independently of the rest of the robot then I would call that a shooting device.

All this is only my humble opinion and should be followed up with a proper response from the Q&A.
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread...highlight=ramp


Q: Is a ramp which would allow balls to roll off the robot (and hopefully toward the corner goals) considered a shooter? The only force causing the balls to move would be gravity.

A: This ramp would not be considered a shooter, but be sure it complies with <R04>.
__________________
Gordon Burlison - Mentor
662/Rocky Mountain Robotics
"Every silver lining's got a Touch of grey - Robert Hunter"
"No sense in being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"
Reply With Quote
  #35   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-02-2006, 23:40
Tom Bottiglieri Tom Bottiglieri is offline
Registered User
FRC #0254 (The Cheesy Poofs)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,188
Tom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoyWithCape195
I also agree. I feel as if the rule should be edited to allow mechanisms under a certain velocity NOT to be considered shooters. If they stick to this rule, it would be saying that in 04 they were "unsafe" by allowing teams who's depositors where outside the starting envelope to compete.
I totally agree with this. I believe including the real definition of what is shooting and what isnt shooting in a Team Update this late in the build should be further discussed by the entire GDC. It was very unclear what 'shooting' actually was in the begining of the build, and I'm sure not many (beside team 177, thank you so much..) teams thought rolling the balls at a very low speed (< 3 ft/s) would be considered shooting. So far, ~30% of the people that voted designs have been affected.

Week 2, big deal. Week 5, something needs to happen.
Reply With Quote
  #36   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-02-2006, 23:42
BoyWithCape195 BoyWithCape195 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Ben Gagne
FRC #0195
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 410
BoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant future
Send a message via AIM to BoyWithCape195
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

How would you go about asking for a change though, is it something easy to do? Also its about 30% just here on Chief Delphi, imagine all the teams who are not active on this forum and/or don't check the Q&A all the time.
__________________
#16
2007 UTC New England Regional Champions (1124 and 558)
2007 UTC GM Industrial Design
2006 International Championship Finalist (25 and 968)
2006 Newton Division Champions (25 and 968)
2006 Championship Innovation in Control Award
2006 UTC Quarterfinalist (236 and 230)
2006 UTC Innovation in Control Award
2005 Curie Division Quarterfinalists (703 and 234)
2005 UTC Semifinalist (228 and 236)
2004 UTC Entrepreneurship Award
2004 New Jersey Semifinalists (173 and 11)
2004 New Jersey Sportsmanship Award
Reply With Quote
  #37   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-02-2006, 23:49
pez1959's Avatar
pez1959 pez1959 is offline
Cap'n Patty
AKA: Patrick
FRC #1959 (Aye Aye Robot)
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Blythewood SC
Posts: 36
pez1959 is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to pez1959 Send a message via MSN to pez1959 Send a message via Yahoo to pez1959
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Ok so in the game animation...
Red harvester robot, in auton. it drives to the corner and dumps its hopper. Is that legal now?
Reply With Quote
  #38   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-02-2006, 23:50
Tom Bottiglieri Tom Bottiglieri is offline
Registered User
FRC #0254 (The Cheesy Poofs)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,188
Tom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:
Originally Posted by pez1959
Ok so in the game animation...
Red harvester robot, in auton. it drives to the corner and dumps its hopper. Is that legal now?
That is ILLEGAL according Team Update #6. That mechanism was legal up until Team Update 6 was released.
Reply With Quote
  #39   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-02-2006, 23:51
Sachiel7's Avatar
Sachiel7 Sachiel7 is offline
<Yes I managed to flip it
AKA: Shayne Helms
FRC #1132 (RAPTAR Robotics)
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 541
Sachiel7 is just really niceSachiel7 is just really niceSachiel7 is just really niceSachiel7 is just really niceSachiel7 is just really nice
Send a message via AIM to Sachiel7
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

^ really good point.
I voted *no* because I didn't get to the point in the thread that applied to shooters. It seemed to apply to corner-goal loaders.
So, change my little percentage to yes.
This completely changes our guiding system design.
__________________
-=Sachiel7=-

There's no such thing as being too simple!
Look for Team #1132, RAPTAR Robotics at the VCU Regional this year!
Reply With Quote
  #40   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-02-2006, 23:56
Confucius37 Confucius37 is offline
El Prez/El Driver
AKA: Vic
#0599 (RoboDox)
Team Role: Leadership
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5
Confucius37 is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

So from what i understand, which could be very little, any robot that has a roller that sucks balls in and, when ran in reverse sucks balls out would be illegal?
Reply With Quote
  #41   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-02-2006, 23:56
BoyWithCape195 BoyWithCape195 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Ben Gagne
FRC #0195
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 410
BoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant future
Send a message via AIM to BoyWithCape195
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

If it was at all outside of the starting envelope than yes
__________________
#16
2007 UTC New England Regional Champions (1124 and 558)
2007 UTC GM Industrial Design
2006 International Championship Finalist (25 and 968)
2006 Newton Division Champions (25 and 968)
2006 Championship Innovation in Control Award
2006 UTC Quarterfinalist (236 and 230)
2006 UTC Innovation in Control Award
2005 Curie Division Quarterfinalists (703 and 234)
2005 UTC Semifinalist (228 and 236)
2004 UTC Entrepreneurship Award
2004 New Jersey Semifinalists (173 and 11)
2004 New Jersey Sportsmanship Award
Reply With Quote
  #42   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-02-2006, 23:56
Richard Wallace's Avatar
Richard Wallace Richard Wallace is offline
I live for the details.
FRC #3620 (Average Joes)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Southwestern Michigan
Posts: 3,667
Richard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:
<R04> "Wedge” robots are not allowed. Robots must be designed so that interaction with other robots results in pushing rather than tipping or lifting. Neither offensive nor defensive wedges are allowed. All parts of a robot between 0 and 8.5 inches from the ground (the top of the bumper zone – see Rule <R35>) that might push against another robot must be within 10 degrees of vertical. Devices deployed outside the robot's footprint should be designed to avoid wedging. If a mechanism or an appendage (a ball harvester, for example) becomes a wedge that interferes with other robots, penalties, disabling, or disqualification can occur depending on the severity of the infraction.
I'd read this to mean that a flipper, ramp, or other mechanism that can be in the bumper zone and might contact another robot must always remain within 10 degrees of vertical.

As written, the rule provides referees a method to deal with infractions that they observe during a match.

Since this is a robot rule, it may also be policed during robot inspection. I hope that FIRST will provide some clarification to teams and to volunteers so that this rule is interpreted and enforced uniformly at all events.
__________________
Richard Wallace

Mentor since 2011 for FRC 3620 Average Joes (St. Joseph, Michigan)
Mentor 2002-10 for FRC 931 Perpetual Chaos (St. Louis, Missouri)
since 2003

I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research.
(Cosmic Religion : With Other Opinions and Aphorisms (1931) by Albert Einstein, p. 97)
Reply With Quote
  #43   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-02-2006, 23:59
Chriszuma's Avatar
Chriszuma Chriszuma is offline
Jack of all trades
AKA: Chris Hammond
FRC #0068 (Truck Town Thunder)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Clarkston, MI
Posts: 290
Chriszuma is just really niceChriszuma is just really niceChriszuma is just really niceChriszuma is just really nice
Send a message via AIM to Chriszuma
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri
That is ILLEGAL according Team Update #6. That mechanism was legal up until Team Update 6 was released.
Wait, how is that illegal? The other Q&A said that any system that depends solely on gravity to move the ball is okay.
Reply With Quote
  #44   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-02-2006, 00:01
GB330033 GB330033 is offline
Programming Manager
FRC #1255 (Team Blarglefish)
Team Role: Programmer
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Baytown, Texas
Posts: 58
GB330033 will become famous soon enough
Send a message via AIM to GB330033
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Well, if a team is planning a fold-out ramp, I don't think they have to worry. As long as the ramp is only deployed at the goal, when attempting to score, there should be no issue, as it could not interfere with another robot. However, drives around with said ramp deployed at all times, it would likely be a violation.

Edit: I believe it would be illegal because the robot is giving an impulse to the balls by moving the hopper. Seems absurd when the update from FIRST causes their animation to be illegal...
__________________
Hook'Em
Reply With Quote
  #45   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-02-2006, 00:04
Chriszuma's Avatar
Chriszuma Chriszuma is offline
Jack of all trades
AKA: Chris Hammond
FRC #0068 (Truck Town Thunder)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Clarkston, MI
Posts: 290
Chriszuma is just really niceChriszuma is just really niceChriszuma is just really niceChriszuma is just really nice
Send a message via AIM to Chriszuma
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:
Originally Posted by GB330033
Well, if a team is planning a fold-out ramp, I don't think they have to worry. As long as the ramp is only deployed at the goal, when attempting to score, there should be no issue, as it could not interfere with another robot. However, drives around with said ramp deployed at all times, it would likely be a violation.

Edit: I believe it would be illegal because the robot is giving an impulse to the balls by moving the hopper. Seems absurd when the update from FIRST causes their animation to be illegal...
But it's not really giving it an impulse. Unless the hopper violently flops over and sends the balls flying out, they are simply being released, and moved by gravity.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[OCCRA]: Rule Clarification Viking(redneck) OCCRA 3 24-11-2004 09:41
Rule Changes at off season competitions Ken Leung Off-Season Events 23 11-05-2004 22:39
Very Important Rule Clarification!!! Mr. Mac OCCRA 0 17-10-2002 23:35
IMPORTANT RULE ADDITION AND CLARIFICATION Mike McIntyre OCCRA 0 03-12-2001 22:17


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:38.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi